Stuff

The YouGov/Sunday Times poll had some questions trying to tease out people’s perceptions of who has the best claim to be PM in a hung Parliament. This is, obviously, not necessarily the same thing as who will be. Much of the discussion I’ve seen on this has been at cross purposes – some people rightly saying that the leader who can command a majority in the Commons has the constitutional right to be PM, others saying that in circumstances X, Y or Z or with party A, B or C that may be seen as illegitimate. These two things are not contradictory – it is perfectly possible to have a situation where a leader has the perfect constitutional right to be Prime Minister, yet is seen as illegitimate by the public. If the study of public opinion tells you anything, it should be that public opinion is quite often wrong. A good example is Gordon Brown in 2010 – remaining as PM while negotiations took place was quite clearly his constitutional duty… but it didn’t stop him getting flak for “squatting” in Downing Street. Public opinion on the legitimacy of who becomes PM won’t make any difference to who gets the invite from the Palace, the maths will decide that, but it may make a difference to how that government is perceived by the public in the longer term.

On this front, by 47% to 26% of people think that the biggest party has the best claim to form a government, even if other parties collectively have more seats. If there is a difference between the party with the most seats and the most votes, by 43% to 29% people think it is votes that should matter.

Asked about whether parties should try to go it alone or form a coalition there is an interesting difference. Should the Conservatives find themselves the largest party then 58% of Tory voters think they should try to strike a deal with other parties to get a majority, 29% think they should try to go it alone. Should Labour find themselves the largest party the figures are much closer – 44% of their voters think they should try to strike a deal, 39% think they should try to go it alone. YouGov then asked what the other side should do in those circumstances… in both cases, the balance of public opinion is that oppositions should give a minority government a chance. If the Conservatives try to go it alone, 32% think the other parties should vote to bring them down, 40% think they should be given a chance. The figures are almost identical for a minority Labour government, 30% think the Tories should just vote them out, 39% that they should give them a chance.

The polling on all these questions will likely be transformed completely next week when the numbers are known and these questions become opinions on a Cameron government, a Miliband government or whatever, rather than hypothetical situations – these aren’t set in stone. I expect many respondents who say largest party should form the government might change their answer in the event largest party was X or Y. The point us how the parties behave next week, whether they are seen as being in the right and behaving in a responsible way will have an impact on the public’s perception of them.

Both the YouGov/Sunday Times poll and the Survation poll asked people who watched the Question Time leaders special earlier in the week who they thought had won – both found Cameron clearly ahead. YouGov had Cameron winning by 42% to Miliband’s 26% and Clegg’s 13%, Survation had Cameron winning on 38% to Miliband’s 24% and Clegg’s 9%.

As well as the YouGov/Sunday Times poll there was also a separate YouGov poll for the Sun on Sunday. This has topline figures of CON 34%, LAB 35%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5% so is also bang in line with YouGov’s pattern the parties being roughly neck-and-neck. The poll included a question on people’s preferred coalition/deal which showed a very even split, the same as we’ve seen in many other polls – Con/LD 21%, Con/UKIP 18%, Lab/LD 20%, Lab/SNP 16%. However they also asked which coalition people think would be worst, which produced a much clearer result – Lab/SNP 39%, Con/UKIP 32%, Con/LD 6%, Lab/LD 4% – people fear the SNP and UKIP’s influence on government, the poor old Lib Dems are seen as quite benign.

1,586 Responses to “More from the Sunday polls”

The situation in NI is fairly static, and there’s no public polling done, so I think we ought to consider it beyond the UKPR prediction remit, which is about data-driven guesstimates. Belfast East may go from Alliance to DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone might go from SF to UUP, but [waves hands]. It’s like picking lottery numbers, not filling out a pools coupon.

” My guess is that, seeing as there is no longer any heavy industry, the term ‘Labour’ is now redundant anyway. It’s just an historical left over…….
Of course, this is all wild speculation. Apologies to you all, and especially to AW”
__________

Not so wild but even without heavy industry there is still a place for Labour in Scotland but they need to start acting like Labour.

Welcome Brumble! I share your politics but really do appreciate your non-partisan influenced prediction of the Conservatives doing much better than Labour in the seats tally. I don’t predict the same – but your objectivity makes you a very welcome addition to UKPR!

BANTAMS – There is no requirement for a Cabinet Minister or even the PM to be an MP. It is custom (not rule) that the PM is the leader of the biggest party and an MP but only custom and nothing more. Alec Douglas Home wasn’t an MP when he was appointed PM in 1963. We have also PM who didn’t come from the largest party. In fact, believe it or not, there is no requirement or obligation to have a PM.

Similarly the PM does not have to be British, nor protestant, nor even christian. Contrary to the rubbish on far-Right sites.

Government is by appointment. Parliament is by election. Legally there is no restriction on who can be prime minister, the Queen can appoint whomever she likes to the office or no-one at all.

If the two obvious groupings (Con + LD etc and Labour + SNP etc) end up with very nearly the same number of seats, the ‘winner’ is not going to have an easy time, and may not keep their original (group) majority for long because of bye-election losses and even defections. In that case, is it possible that it would suit the LibDems to declare themselves neutral, in that they would abstain on any confidence votes? They could take the moral high ground by saying that it was to allow a relatively stable government (as the Labour-led grouping would then have workable majority, and take advantage of not being too closely associated with either the government or the opposition to try to rebuild their party’s support. Would this be more likely if Clegg is no longer their leader?

Ministers don’t have to be a member of either House of Parliament. Frank Gordon Walker was Harold Wilson’s first Foreign Secretary even though he lost his seat of Smethwick at the 1964 General Election.

Assumingthe the Conservative +LD and Labor votes split 34/3/10% votes Labor would would win there by 20seats y will not happen. just the opposite) and as your prediction shows all the other together will have about 60 of which 50 to be SNP , rabidly anti-Labor and therefore leading to a 30 or 40 seat CON advantage there, there is no way that Labor and the left can winn the Commons.

So all the palaber of of a narrow election as it was, even more justfiable, in Scotlands plebiscit, the usual manipulation of the Media to create emotion were there is not and so produce more money for the latter. Reminds me of the “surprise” when MAJOR won his election many years ago. In this time, when there was no significan nor cocentrated 3rd party, the oposition had still a small chance, not now with a the main ones neck to neck and the rightist localist SNP!!

Even more so becaus the votes lost be Cameron, mostly to the SNP seat-wise, will be available for the conservative Government with or without a coalition for any dangerous vote. And if you look at your own prognose, this happens this would enerate another palaver : even a minority goverment of the Conservative Government, however inconvenient, could be thinkable

The would have more than 45% ofthe votes in the Commons assured!

I am not an UK resident but know my mathematics. with jointly with the UK electoral system and a very few facts regarding the political parties is all what is needed!

So, I dare tothrow in my two pennies T:he seats in the Commons f or Tories and Labor will remain more or less as tey are know., buried under a barrage of babbling!! But of course: this being contigent that the voter count will remain not very fa rfrom 50/50 and in the same percentual magnitude as nearly unanimously forecasted